This invention is particularly suited for in-situ applications of liquid chemicals mixed and dispensed as a spray or a foam and more specifically, to in-situ application of polyurethane foam or froth. In-situ applications for polyurethane foam have continued to increase in recent years extending the application of polyurethane foam beyond its traditional uses in the packaging, insulation and molding fields. For example, polyurethane foam is being used with increasing frequency as a sealant in the building trades for sealing spaces between windows and door frames and the like and as an adhesive for gluing flooring, roof tiles, and the like.
Polyurethane foam for in-situ applications is typically supplied as a “one-component” froth foam or a “two-component” froth foam in portable containers hand carried and dispensed by the operator through either a valve or a gun. However, the chemical reactions producing the polyurethane froth foam in a “one-component” polyurethane foam is significantly different from the chemical reactions producing a polyurethane froth foam in a “two-component” polyurethane foam. Because the reactions are different, the dispensing of the chemicals for a two-component polyurethane foam involves different and additional concepts and concerns than those present in the dispensing apparatus for a “one-component” polyurethane froth foam.
A “one-component” foam generally means that both the resin and the isocyanate used in the foam formulation are supplied in a single pressurized container and dispensed from the container through a valve or a gun attached to the container. When the chemicals leave the valve, a reaction with moisture in the air produces a polyurethane froth or foam. Thus, the design concerns related to an apparatus for dispensing one-component polyurethane foam essentially concerns the operating characteristics of how the one-component polyurethane foam is throttled or metered from the pressurized container. Post drip is a major concern in such applications as well as the dispensing gun not clogging because of reaction of the one component formulation with air (moisture) within the gun. To address or at least partially address such problems, a needle valve seat is typically applied as close to the dispensing point by a metering rod arrangement which can be pulled back for cleaning. While metering can occur at the needle valve seat, the seat is primarily for shut-off to prevent post drip, and depending on gun dimensioning, metering may principally occur at the gun opening.
In contrast, a “two-component” froth foam means that one principal foam component is supplied in one pressurized container, typically the “A” container (i.e., polymeric isocyanate, fluorocarbons, etc.) while the other principal foam component is supplied in a second pressurized container, typically the “B” container (i.e., polyols, catalysts, flame retardants, fluorocarbons, etc.). In a two-component polyurethane foam, the “A” and “B” components form the foam or froth when they are mixed in the gun. Of course, chemical reactions with moisture in the air will also occur with a two-component polyurethane foam after dispensing, but the principal reaction forming the polyurethane foam occurs when the “A” and “B” components are mixed or contact one another in the dispensing gun and/or dispensing gun nozzle. The dispensing apparatus for a two-component polyurethane foam application has to thus address not only the metering design concerns present in a one-component dispensing apparatus, but also the mixing requirements of a two-component polyurethane foam.
Further, a “frothing” characteristic of the foam is enhanced by the pressurized gas employed, e.g., fluorocarbon (or similar) component, which is present in the “A” and “B” components. This fluorocarbon component is a compressed gas which exits in its liquid state under pressure and changes to it gaseous state when the liquid is dispensed into a lower pressure ambient environment, such as when the liquid components exit the gun and enter the nozzle.
While polyurethane foam is well known, the formulation varies considerably depending on application. In particular, while the polyols and isocyanates are typically kept separate in the “B” and “A” containers, other chemicals in the formulation may be placed in either container with the result that the weight or viscosity of the liquids in each container varies as well as the ratios at which the “A” and “B” components are to be mixed. In dispensing gun applications which relate to this invention, the “A” and “B” formulations are such that the mixing ratios are generally kept equal so that the “A” and “B” containers are the same size. However, the weight, more importantly the viscosity, of the liquids in the containers invariably vary from one another. To adjust for viscosity variation between “A” and “B” chemical formulations, the “A” and “B” containers are charged (typically with an inert gas) at different pressures to achieve equal flow rates. The metering valves in a two-component gun, therefore, have to meter different liquids at different pressures at a precise ratio under varying flow rates. For this reason (among others), some dispensing guns have a design where each metering rod/valve is separately adjustable against a separate spring to compensate not only for ratio variations in different formulations but also viscosity variations between the components. The typical two-component dispensing gun in use today can be viewed as two separate one-component dispensing guns in a common housing discharging their components into a mixing chamber or nozzle. This practice, typically leads to operator errors. To counteract this adverse result, the ratio adjustment then has to be “hidden” within the gun, or the design has to be such that the ratio setting is “fixed” in the gun for specific formulations. The gun cost is increased in either event and “fixing” the ratio setting to a specific formulation prevents interchangeability of the dispensing gun.
Another element affecting the operation of a two-component gun is the design of the nozzle. The nozzle is typically a throw away item detachably mounted to the nose of the gun. Nozzle design is important for cross-over and metering considerations in that the nozzle directs the “A” and “B” components to a static mixer within the tip. For example, one gun completely divides the nozzle into two passages by a wall extending from the nozzle nose to the mixer. The wall lessens but does not eliminate the risk of cross-over since the higher pressurized component must travel into the mixer and back to the lower pressure metering valve.
A still further characteristic distinguishing two-component from one-component gun designs resides in the clogging tendencies of two-component guns. Because the foam foaming reaction commences when the “A” and “B” components contact one another, it is clear that, once the gun is used, the static mixer will clog with polyurethane foam or froth formed within the mixer. This is why the nozzles, which contain the static mixer, are designed as throw away items. In practice, the foam does not instantaneously form within the nozzle upon cessation of metering to the point where the nozzles have to be discarded. Some time must elapse. This is a function of the formulation itself, the design of the static mixer and, all things being equal, the design of the nozzle.
The dispensing gun of the present invention is particularly suited for use in two-component polyurethane foam “kits” typically sold to the building or construction trade. Typically, the kit contains two pressurized “A” and “B” cylinders (150-250 psi), a pair of hoses for connection to the cylinders and a dispensing gun, all of which are packaged in a container constructed to house and carry the components to the site where the foam is to be applied. When the chemicals in the “A” and “B” containers are depleted, the kit is sometimes discarded or the containers can be recycled. The dispensing gun may or may not be replaced. Since the dispensing gun is included in the kit, kit cost considerations dictate that the dispensing gun be relatively inexpensive. Typically, the dispensing gun is made from plastic with minimal usage of machined parts.
The Prior Art dispensing guns are typically “airless” and do not contain provisions for cleaning the gun. That is, a number of dispensing or metering guns or apparatus, particularly those used in high volume foam applications, are equipped or provided with a means or mechanism to introduce air or a solvent for cleaning or clearing the passages in the gun. The use of the term “airless” as used in this patent and the claims hereof means that the dispensing apparatus is not provided with an external, cleaning or purging mechanism.
Within each type of dispensing gun (e.g., one-component dispensing gun, two-component dispensing gun), a metering rod is utilized. The metering rod is a primary shutoff within the dispensing gun that meters or controls dispensing of material. The metering rod is often referred to as a needle or a pin and engages a female type receiver to meter or shutoff flow of chemical (e.g., material, component “A,” component “B,” etc.). In one-component dispensing guns, a single metering rod is included within a dispensing passage. In two-component dispensing guns, a metering rod is included within each dispensing passage associated with component (e.g., material). In an embodiment, two-component dispensing gun includes first dispensing passage and respective metering rod and second dispensing passage and respective metering rod. Upon use of a trigger, metering rod(s) allow material to be dispensed.
Fabrication of metering rods for dispensing guns include various challenges to produce an efficient dispensing gun at a reasonable price point. Typically, metering rods are fabricated incorporating brass, copper, and other materials (e.g., metallic, non-metallic, etc.). Yet, such materials have increased in cost and, in turn, increased cost of manufacturing dispensing guns. Furthermore, dispensing gun requires a secure mating between receiver and metering rod in order to prevent inconsistent metering (e.g., non-uniform dispensing of material, components, or chemical) and incomplete shut off (in a closed position). Inaccuracy between mating surfaces (e.g., receiver and metering rod) is typically overcome by forcing two elements together during initial assembly and allowing the more malleable of the two elements to take set. This technique is referred to as presetting and typically requires lengthy hold time which limits manufacturing of dispensing guns. Overall, presetting increases the possibility of enabling two mating surfaces to have secure connection (e.g., mating) to avoid leakage and/or non-uniform dispensing but adds to the manufacturing time.
Additionally, metallic metering rods are often fabricated with turning or grinding techniques. In particular, during creation of typical metallic metering rod(s), radial micro grooves are present due to such turning or grinding technique. With repeated use over duration of time, these micro grooves cause wear to the more malleable mating surface. In general, micro grooves grind or file away at the mating surface which can cause leakage of chemical/material at the mating surface.
While two-component dispensing guns discussed above function in a commercially acceptable manner, it is becoming increasingly clear as the number of in-situ applications for polyurethane foam increase, that the range or the ability of the dispensing gun to function for all such applications has to be improved. As a general example, metering rods that meter amount of dispensed material need to be fabricated in a manner that prevent uneven dispensing of materials as well as prevent incomplete shutoff.
Further limitations and disadvantages of conventional, traditional, and proposed approaches will become apparent to one of skill in the art, through comparison of such systems and methods with certain embodiments the claimed invention as set forth in the remainder of the present application with reference to the drawings.